CVE-2020-11627
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedAn issue was discovered in EJBCA before 6.15.2.6 and 7.x before 7.3.1.2. A Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) issue has been found in the CA UI.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · moderate confidenceA Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) vulnerability exists in the EJBCA Certificate Authority User Interface (CA UI). The vulnerability allows an attacker to potentially execute unauthorized actions on behalf of an authenticated administrator by tricking them into visiting a malicious page while logged into EJBCA. The affected components are the CA management functions within the CA UI.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data< 6.15.2.6>= 7.0.0, < 7.3.1.2CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- High
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify EJBCA installation and versionCheck the EJBCA version by accessing the admin web interface (usually at /ejbca/adminweb) or by checking the version file in the EJBCA installation directory. Compare your version against the affected ranges: < 6.15.2.6 or >= 7.0.0 to < 7.3.1.2Affected if Your installed EJBCA version falls within < 6.15.2.6 or >= 7.0.0, < 7.3.1.2
-
Confirm CA UI is accessibleVerify that the EJBCA Certificate Authority User Interface (CA UI) is accessible by attempting to navigate to the CA management section of the admin web interfaceAffected if The CA UI is accessible and you are running an affected version
-
Check for CSRF token implementation in CA UI formsInspect the HTML source of CA management forms in the EJBCA admin interface to determine if CSRF protection tokens (synchronizer tokens) are present in the form elementsAffected if CA UI forms lack CSRF protection tokens and you are on an affected version
-
Verify session cookie SameSite attribute configurationIf your EJBCA uses cookie-based session management, inspect the session cookies set by the CA UI to check if the SameSite attribute is configured (either Lax or Strict)Affected if Session cookies lack SameSite attribute configuration and you are on an affected version
You are affected if your EJBCA version is below 6.15.2.6 or between 7.0.0 and 7.3.1.2, and the CA UI is accessible without CSRF token protection on its forms.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor data6.15.2.67.3.1.2
Implement CSRF protection tokens (synchronizer token pattern) on all CA UI forms and validate these tokens on the server side. Alternatively, configure SameSite cookie attributes for session cookies if using cookie-based session management.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,328.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2020-11627 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2020-11627 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data